What SE currently lacks

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is available! You can read all about it in the news.

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • Wesser wrote:

    Laik wrote:

    So our shooting character (pathfinder) can't be a BSB which highly reduces utlity of the pathfinder unit as they can't operate outside of BSB range (weird anchor would you agree?). While its HE counterpart can shoot 3 times while giving a great bonus to its unit. Other option in HE is a mage BSB that also shoots 3x S5 (a firepower that is unavailable for any SE character) - I find ot a bit unfair especially that we're suppose to be master arcbers...
    Well the HBE shooter doesn't have any effective avoidance units to join. Grey Watchers are support rather than damage, so is a poor choice to join, so he has to join a regular unit. So the change was made to avoid having an avoidance BsB, which makes sense.
    What is more awkward is that a Pathfinder Chieftain pays the same amount of points for the Kindred and Bough of Wyscan as a Prince despite less benefit
    No they want to avoid avoidance wizard with SE (yes OnG have it, but on low-DI units). Arguably they could just make a rule disallowing Druids to join Briar Maidens (I'd personally like to have Shamanism Druid joining some Wild Huntsmen just because), but ... at this point I don't think the team is much likely to make rules changes anywhere
    That change (no BSB on pathfinder) killed both the kindred and unit - if this is the point to kill avoidance option, which is an essence of SE playstyle, then they should remove SE as a fraction as they should't be different than other armies
    Team Poland WE Player 2015
    Team Poland SE Player 2016
    Team Poland SE Player 2017
    Team Poland SE Player 2018
    Team Poland DE Player 2019
  • Laik wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    Laik wrote:

    So our shooting character (pathfinder) can't be a BSB which highly reduces utlity of the pathfinder unit as they can't operate outside of BSB range (weird anchor would you agree?). While its HE counterpart can shoot 3 times while giving a great bonus to its unit. Other option in HE is a mage BSB that also shoots 3x S5 (a firepower that is unavailable for any SE character) - I find ot a bit unfair especially that we're suppose to be master arcbers...
    Well the HBE shooter doesn't have any effective avoidance units to join. Grey Watchers are support rather than damage, so is a poor choice to join, so he has to join a regular unit. So the change was made to avoid having an avoidance BsB, which makes sense.What is more awkward is that a Pathfinder Chieftain pays the same amount of points for the Kindred and Bough of Wyscan as a Prince despite less benefit
    No they want to avoid avoidance wizard with SE (yes OnG have it, but on low-DI units). Arguably they could just make a rule disallowing Druids to join Briar Maidens (I'd personally like to have Shamanism Druid joining some Wild Huntsmen just because), but ... at this point I don't think the team is much likely to make rules changes anywhere
    That change (no BSB on pathfinder) killed both the kindred and unit - if this is the point to kill avoidance option, which is an essence of SE playstyle, then they should remove SE as a fraction as they should't be different than other armies
    Mjah, I've had reasonable results from a Pathfinder Prince with Bough of Wyscan and Obsidian Rock leading 10 Pathfinders (sometimes Sacred Seeds gets thrown in too despite the many shortcomings of that item).

    I see little point in the Chieftain option though as I gladly pay the extra 75 points for the extra shot and CC ability

    Lets face it. Pathfinder BsBs were a no-brainer and an infiltrator character waving the battle banner was as silly as giving the option to DE assassins would be
  • Queen companion no brainer is ok? Actually talking BSB upgrade on almost every single character in the game is ok, but frmom some time it is not ok on pathfinder heroes (which has pro en to kill that kimdred from competetive gaming)
    Team Poland WE Player 2015
    Team Poland SE Player 2016
    Team Poland SE Player 2017
    Team Poland SE Player 2018
    Team Poland DE Player 2019
  • Laik wrote:

    That change (no BSB on pathfinder) killed both the kindred and unit - if this is the point to kill avoidance option, which is an essence of SE playstyle, then they should remove SE as a fraction as they should't be different than other armies

    Well they could have increased the cost of the pathfinder bsb until it was priced out of existence....


    .... Oh wait....

    ... You can't actually fix everything with only points. Goes both ways up and down. And as said above rules changes, simple and fast ones are very much so a necessity to broaden books.

    I feel pathfinders are dead because of other reasons but I also feel I can't explain my thought about it clearly enough and so will not try to, but it is to do with evolution of the game lately and effectiveness in short range.
  • berti wrote:

    I think EoS would love to have a prelate BSB or Inquisitor BSB. Dwarfs would love to have runic smith BSB, or every army a mage wielding the battle banner. ....

    Not that only SE lack in this department, but SE at least have the option to give BSB to the thicket shepherd.
    Actually Pathfinder BSB was played for years in T9A, the ones you mentioned were never allowed. (plus it is meant to be an upgrade for a chieftan)

    2nd question - why bladedancers forget how to dance when a non bladedancer character joins them?
    Why does bladedancer Hero is not allowed to join any other unit?

    And actually the biggest question why does SE suck at winning scenarios?
    Team Poland WE Player 2015
    Team Poland SE Player 2016
    Team Poland SE Player 2017
    Team Poland SE Player 2018
    Team Poland DE Player 2019
  • Something SE lack.

    I want the two characters mounted on one Dragon option. Woodies had one, and it was really cool. Should totally have that. If worried about copyright, maybe expand beyond just dragons and single mount choices with dual character options.
    For Lexicon-team Project Blog:
    Updated lexicons

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • Chronocide wrote:

    Something SE lack.

    I want the two characters mounted on one Dragon option. Woodies had one, and it was really cool. Should totally have that. If worried about copyright, maybe expand beyond just dragons and single mount choices with dual character options.
    Its for the best its not there. Id have to get a 2nd Dragon which the wife wouldnt approve
  • Wesser wrote:

    Chronocide wrote:

    Something SE lack.

    I want the two characters mounted on one Dragon option. Woodies had one, and it was really cool. Should totally have that. If worried about copyright, maybe expand beyond just dragons and single mount choices with dual character options.
    Its for the best its not there. Id have to get a 2nd Dragon which the wife wouldnt approve
    You don't already have one?
    For Lexicon-team Project Blog:
    Updated lexicons

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • Chronocide wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    Chronocide wrote:

    Something SE lack.

    I want the two characters mounted on one Dragon option. Woodies had one, and it was really cool. Should totally have that. If worried about copyright, maybe expand beyond just dragons and single mount choices with dual character options.
    Its for the best its not there. Id have to get a 2nd Dragon which the wife wouldnt approve
    You don't already have one?
    No, the Dragon aint great, but for a while I tried hustling my to Them riders.

    For a Dragon I have a Black Dragon conversion
  • One possible direction the project could explore come time for a LAB is removing the option for a Bsb from the book and giving SE units an alternative for re-rolling Disicpline Tests.

    My personal favourite would be if SE units re-rolled discipline when within 6" of a Forest. It makes Treesinging a lot more interesting for the army and adds some interesting counter play to games as well as greater importance to options like Sacred Seeds & the Hereditary Spell. Such a system could even be further refined by adding re-rolls to Discipline for units joined by characters with their related kindred.

    Of course there are major ramifications that would reverberate throughout the book requiring further changes to the various units, special items, & kindreds section which is why such a change would only be suitable for a LAB.
    A Sylvan Elves Homebrew Full Army Book - last updated May 28, 2020
  • Laik wrote:

    berti wrote:

    I think EoS would love to have a prelate BSB or Inquisitor BSB. Dwarfs would love to have runic smith BSB, or every army a mage wielding the battle banner. ....

    Not that only SE lack in this department, but SE at least have the option to give BSB to the thicket shepherd.
    Actually Pathfinder BSB was played for years in T9A, the ones you mentioned were never allowed. (plus it is meant to be an upgrade for a chieftan)
    2nd question - why bladedancers forget how to dance when a non bladedancer character joins them?
    Why does bladedancer Hero is not allowed to join any other unit?

    And actually the biggest question why does SE suck at winning scenarios?
    Isn't it as difficult to get objectives with the other elves factions as well? I've been playing quite extensively HBE lately and I had a 4 months DE play testing phase last year and I felt that despite them being 3 different armies you have the same issues grabbing the objective (bar for Treemonic lists actually).
  • funkyfellow wrote:

    One possible direction the project could explore come time for a LAB is removing the option for a Bsb from the book and giving SE units an alternative for re-rolling Disicpline Tests.

    My personal favourite would be if SE units re-rolled discipline when within 6" of a Forest. It makes Treesinging a lot more interesting for the army and adds some interesting counter play to games as well as greater importance to options like Sacred Seeds & the Hereditary Spell. Such a system could even be further refined by adding re-rolls to Discipline for units joined by characters with their related kindred.

    Of course there are major ramifications that would reverberate throughout the book requiring further changes to the various units, special items, & kindreds section which is why such a change would only be suitable for a LAB.
    This is a fantastic idea! Really, really cool.
  • If you've big units it's easier to win obkective - SE are more to dance around the enemy, we don't have unit that we can push to the middle of the table to claim it.
    In HE there're few big units that will not vanish from magic and shooting and are a lot more mobile than our tree-scoring units (them having no musician is so big misfit by the way - how an army with Best movement in a game have M5 square units without ability to reform).
    DE have big infantry units with bonus from altar for example.

    I'm really dissapointed that bladedancers scoring - they weren't tough but they could fight for the obkective.
    Team Poland WE Player 2015
    Team Poland SE Player 2016
    Team Poland SE Player 2017
    Team Poland SE Player 2018
    Team Poland DE Player 2019
  • We lack of a good identity playstyle and we are bad taking objectives...
    Sadly other armies can play our avoidance better than us and ofc we are going to suffer much more against missiles. Wish we could have again multiple small units covering and combining each other instead of be forced to lists like 2x 24 rangers...

    Our BsB is trash, if you include it in bladedancers or in rangers is going to be away from our shoot, or we are forced to play it really deffensive... pathfinder BsB was not broken at all, just make it to count to unseen arrows and we cannot spam pathfinders, or give us one magical bow to have 3-4 shoots or make lifeseeds perma strenght 6... every time I spend 200 points on BsB + bow i want to cry...
    Avatar is good but we should have options to customize it...
  • Wesser wrote:

    Chronocide wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    Chronocide wrote:

    Something SE lack.

    I want the two characters mounted on one Dragon option. Woodies had one, and it was really cool. Should totally have that. If worried about copyright, maybe expand beyond just dragons and single mount choices with dual character options.
    Its for the best its not there. Id have to get a 2nd Dragon which the wife wouldnt approve
    You don't already have one?
    No, the Dragon aint great, but for a while I tried hustling my to Them riders.
    agreed. loved the original forest dragon which I have. the one with the two girls had an interesting rules concept but they spoiled the dragon sculpt adding those little spites and frogs and things
    Member of North Herts Wargamers

    “As a Rocks player, I find Scissors to be nicely balanced but Paper is overpowered...”
  • Well, I actually feel that I disagree with the majority here. I guess what is the point of coming to a forum except to disagree, it can not be to agree?!

    Jokes aside I feel that SE are one of the best objective playing armies. Apart from the ability to have a full on death star like some armies have to contests the centre, se have a forestry they can move up to the objective/s and contend it with stubborn troops who have cover. Not only that but you have quiet a few units available. With my VS army I struggle to have many scoring units on the table, with SE I have a minimum of 5 tough units and some cheap itp ones as well.

    While it is true that the elves section struggles to score, that is not the whole book and you can not say that SE are bad at scoring because you chose to ignore a part of the book. Or you can also choose to ignore sections of other books that are easy to score with and say that that particular army is bad at scoring.

    In fact, I don't know what army is better at scoring then SE is. I can't wait think of one of the top of my head. I enjoyed the my zombie horde summoning army, it was good at objectives also, but not nearly as good.
  • Well it seems you are referring to a thicket beasts army - I cannot deny it's ability to score, but the simple fact remains that it seems there are two viable army builds for SE right now - the aforementioned "tree" list which keeps points and can score objectives, and then a very shooty list with sentinels and pathfinders that bleeds points and is difficult to score objectives with. Besides those two "builds" I haven't seen a viable list-type for SE. My contention is that I don't want to be forced into those two archetypes to play, so I'm experimenting and looking for other ways to play SE. Which brings us back to the original question - what is SE lacking? AKA what do we need to make other types of lists viable.
    I play SE, EoS, DH, UD, and KoE and use the units I like, not necessarily the best ones

    Battle Reports Video Blog

    Homebrew Campaign Video Blog

    "Be the player people want to play again"
  • I think you summed it up well here:

    RomanRagnorak wrote:

    the simple fact remains that it seems there are two viable army builds for SE right now - the aforementioned "tree" list which keeps points and can score objectives, and then a very shooty list with sentinels and pathfinders that bleeds points and is difficult to score objectives with.
    It seems that there is only one viable build then?

    However difficult it is to combine the run away approach with something slow I feel it is possible to combine them. The only thing is that the sentinels and pathfinders are so expensive that you can't really fit much next to them, however some min sized dryads could do the scoring trick. It would work better if the pathfinders and sentinels were better ppm, sentinels somehow went up in the last update and they were really only used as no better bunker options, not because they were good. Both units need better incentive to get into close range, the S4 was a good push, the ap1 in long was not. Short range needs something else in addition. Something like rapid fire weapons in 40k work to promote getting in closer. Sentinels just sit in long range and use poison, not caring for S.

    Both units either waay cheaper or more short range benefits would see SE players use more tactics and traps while playing and would need to play more combined arms. Making the units cheaper would force other choices since bow limit is reached, making them better in short range would force SE to combine arms to play more tactically with flees and counter charges.

    There was a suggestion a while ago to make the treefather scoring and he works with avoidence style a lot more then other trees do. This would help the playstyle but force a choice.

    Long gone are days when we used to shoot off whole armies. I remember shooting off whole armies in short range, it was easy in 7th, in 8th I shot off a whole vanguard dwarf list once. I used to have issues with Eagle as chaff positioning when the unit used to die so badly that they would be able to charge past eagle. I used to use 70+ archers.